Byron Smith murder trial in US - wow

[thehawk]

I have no sympathy for the two people who died, they were obviously little scrotes that were repeat offenders, the kinds of people that make other peoples lives a misery and make them feel unsafe in their own homes.

But, he should have just shot them "normally" and called the police. His mutterings and subsequent actions were not particularly clever.

[Pommygranite]

Jimbeaux said:

You really think that? Where do you get that from?

1. Were discussing it on here. Show me the other thread discussing a black burglar death.

2. The DM showed more pictures of the pretty girl than anything else.

[GavinPearson]

Amirhussain said:

I agree with you, but the way he carried out the killing, by shooting her under her chin, I lost sympathy for him, if he hadn't done that, he probably would be a free man today.

I have no sympathy for the homeowner. He could have stopped any threat to himself from them with shots to the torso with a chance that they would live to tell the tale, call the police & let them work with ambulance crews to save the two. But he chose to execute them. He should face whatever the toughest sentence his state offers.

[Grumfutock]

GC8 said:

I think that 'outraged' is something of an exaggeration, surely?

When you look at some of the posts that have been left up? Hell yes!

Although it is now a mute point.

[s3fella]

Although this appears to be an execution, it would appear that these teenagers took one hell of a risk by breaking in when the law allows someone to use deadly force I'm their own home.

If he had been repeatedly targeted, perhaps by these two, perhaps by others also, I think what happened will certainly make some kids thing twice about breaking and entering and harassing some old geezer.

[WinstonWolf]

Martin4x4 said:

Yes the execution was excessive but he was clearly distributed and you have to wonder how much of that was out of fear that grew each time his home was violated.

Things in this country are too far the other way like this example.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1410458/Man-who-ki...

I know from my own experience when you get into a fight with a burglar rationality goes out of the window and you fight for your life. In my case I was 'winning' on pure adrenaline but him being high on smack meant I unable to incapacitate him and the fight continued and ended up outside with the Police on the way.

The judge is wrong, you are not safe once out side in my case that is when his two accomplice showed up and one tried to strangle me before all running off as the Police came around the corner.

You don't sleep properly for months wake up at the slightest sound and 'have' to double/triple check all the doors & windows. I had to keep a baseball bat beside the bed for about three years afterwards to feel safe.

Edited by Martin4x4 on Thursday 24th April 22:08

Interesting insight into the reality of what happens when you're burgled.

[NRS]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Depends which country you are in. Broadly speaking, you can't attack an intruder in defence of your "property" in UK. You can only use "reasonable force" to eject the intruder - and that may mean no more than asking him to go away. You can only get physical if he won't go away.

In the USA it's completely different and, amongst other things, varies from state to state. At the simplest, a property owner can use more force with less provocation in USA.

This is worth a read. It deals with a similar killing by Tony Martin in UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

This second link gives a brief outline of the relevant law (Minnesota, USA) for the Byron Smith case. It's very different,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

I understand it's different laws, but the reality is he didn't need to kill them in the way he did (and to be honest it's debatable he needed to do it in the first place).

For those people saying it's ok because he was defending his property then where is the limit for not doing this when looking after your property? Should we start excuting those who commit bank fraud that are stealing people's money, causing stress etc?

I've had my car damaged and stuff stolen from it, but to say it's fine the people who did it should die is absolute insanity. There's a difference between money and someone's life (well, at least for some people it seems).

[98elise]

NRS said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Depends which country you are in. Broadly speaking, you can't attack an intruder in defence of your "property" in UK. You can only use "reasonable force" to eject the intruder - and that may mean no more than asking him to go away. You can only get physical if he won't go away.

In the USA it's completely different and, amongst other things, varies from state to state. At the simplest, a property owner can use more force with less provocation in USA.

This is worth a read. It deals with a similar killing by Tony Martin in UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

This second link gives a brief outline of the relevant law (Minnesota, USA) for the Byron Smith case. It's very different,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

I understand it's different laws, but the reality is he didn't need to kill them in the way he did (and to be honest it's debatable he needed to do it in the first place).

For those people saying it's ok because he was defending his property then where is the limit for not doing this when looking after your property? Should we start excuting those who commit bank fraud that are stealing people's money, causing stress etc?

I've had my car damaged and stuff stolen from it, but to say it's fine the people who did it should die is absolute insanity. There's a difference between money and someone's life (well, at least for some people it seems).

I agree. Imagine if this were say a shopkeeper. Is somone comes in waving a knife/gun then you would be justified in shooting them.

What if its a couple of kids stealing a can of coke? Shoot them.....shoot them three times, drag theme across the floor put a gun under their chin and finish them off?

Its all about your DEFENSE. Once you are out of danger you do not go in for the head shot. This bloke knew what he was doing, he knew he wanted them dead. The girl had been shot 3 times and fell down some stairs and was dragged across the floor so hardly a threat anymore.

He then went for a soft part of the head to make sure she was killed, that was up close and personal. In no way is that defending yourself.

[LocoCoco]

NRS said:

I understand it's different laws, but the reality is he didn't need to kill them in the way he did (and to be honest it's debatable he needed to do it in the first place).

For those people saying it's ok because he was defending his property then where is the limit for not doing this when looking after your property? Should we start excuting those who commit bank fraud that are stealing people's money, causing stress etc?

I've had my car damaged and stuff stolen from it, but to say it's fine the people who did it should die is absolute insanity. There's a difference between money and someone's life (well, at least for some people it seems).

The logic as I see it is that we shouldn't be executing anybody, however, as and when thieves/frauds/vandals die, the world becomes a slightly better place.

[Vaud]

s3fella said:

I think what happened will certainly make some kids thing twice about breaking and entering and harassing some old geezer.

It won't though will it? Kids think they are indestructible, and gun ownership does not seem to correlate to low crime in the US, it just seems too raise the body count.

[Bill]

LocoCoco said:

The logic as I see it is that we shouldn't be executing anybody, however, as and when thieves/frauds/vandals die, the world becomes a slightly better place.

Does it?

I had a single run in with the law as a teenage, and received a caution for attempted theft. Would the world be a better place if I was dead?

[Ozzie Osmond]

NRS said:

For those people saying it's ok because he was defending his property then where is the limit for not doing this when looking after your property?

I think you've missed the point that this law deals with intruders in your HOME. It's not about financial fraud or nicking the wing mirror off your car while it's parked at the supermarket.

[LocoCoco]

Vaud said:

s3fella said:

I think what happened will certainly make some kids thing twice about breaking and entering and harassing some old geezer.

It won't though will it? Kids think they are indestructible, and gun ownership does not seem to correlate to low crime in the US, it just seems too raise the body count.

You are arguing that this incident won't make some kids think twice about breaking and entering? I agree that it won't make much difference but surely some kids somewhere will be think twice now.

To all the people who think these kids didn't deserve to die, could you give me some reasons as to why they deserve their life?

[LocoCoco]

Bill said:

LocoCoco said:

The logic as I see it is that we shouldn't be executing anybody, however, as and when thieves/frauds/vandals die, the world becomes a slightly better place.

Does it?

I had a single run in with the law as a teenage, and received a caution for attempted theft. Would the world be a better place if I was dead?

Yes (IMO). Me too by the way, world would be better place if I was dead.

[Dan_1981]

This thread is completely and utterly bonkers.

[Vaud]

LocoCoco said:

You are arguing that this incident won't make some kids think twice about breaking and entering? I agree that it won't make much difference but surely some kids somewhere will be think twice now.

Maybe. But kids aren't known for watching the news.

LocoCoco said:

To all the people who think these kids didn't deserve to die, could you give me some reasons as to why they deserve their life?

They deserved to be punished, that's what we do in a civilised society. I would even say they deserve to be punished severely. But they didn't kill anyone, they weren't rapist or child molesters, so yes, I think they should be allowed to live, the crazy liberal that I am.

They were wrong to break and enter.
He was wrong to execute them.

[Disastrous]

LocoCoco said:

Bill said:

LocoCoco said:

The logic as I see it is that we shouldn't be executing anybody, however, as and when thieves/frauds/vandals die, the world becomes a slightly better place.

Does it?

I had a single run in with the law as a teenage, and received a caution for attempted theft. Would the world be a better place if I was dead?

Yes (IMO).

What?? That is the most preposterous thing I've ever read in News, Politics and the Far Right! Astonishing post.

[Dan_1981]

Vaud said:

They deserved to be punished, that's what we do in a civilised society. I would even say they deserve to be punished severely. But they didn't kill anyone, they weren't rapist or child molesters, so yes, I think they should be allowed to live, the crazy liberal that I am.

They were wrong to break and enter.
He was wrong to execute them.

Out of interest then does this mean that all rapists, molesters and killers do deserve to die?

[LocoCoco]

Vaud said:

LocoCoco said:

You are arguing that this incident won't make some kids think twice about breaking and entering? I agree that it won't make much difference but surely some kids somewhere will be think twice now.

Maybe. But kids aren't known for watching the news.

LocoCoco said:

To all the people who think these kids didn't deserve to die, could you give me some reasons as to why they deserve their life?

They deserved to be punished, that's what we do in a civilised society. I would even say they deserve to be punished severely. But they didn't kill anyone, they weren't rapist or child molesters, so yes, I think they should be allowed to live, the crazy liberal that I am.

They were wrong to break and enter.
He was wrong to execute them.

I agree with your last two statements. You didn't answer why they deserve their life?

[Vaud]

Dan_1981 said:

Out of interest then does this mean that all rapists, molesters and killers do deserve to die?

No, but I understand more why some country allow a death penalty for those crimes. I don't personally agree with it except for crimes against humanity - e.g. Hitler, but then I'm washed out crazy liberal. I was just drawing an arbitrary line.